Study of Voting Splits On City Councils in Los Angeles County
| Author | Robert J. Huckshorn,Charles E. Young |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296001300213 |
| Date | 01 June 1960 |
| Published date | 01 June 1960 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
479
STUDY
OF
VOTING
SPLITS
ON
CITY
COUNCILS
IN
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY*
ROBERT
J.
HUCKSHORN,
University
of
Idaho
and
CHARLES
E.
YOUNG,
University
of
California,
Davis
HE
STUDY
of
municipal
government
has
greatly
accelerated
in
the
past
few
years,
but
as
yet
little
has
been
done
to
investigate
the
behavior
of
JL
municipal
councils
and
commissions.
The
large
number
of
separately
incorporated
cities
in
the
rather
restricted
area
of
one
metropolitan
county
obvi-
ously
presents
ideal
ground
upon
which
to
conduct
such
a
study.
This
project
was
drafted,
therefore,
to
determine
the
types
of
voting
patterns
that
exist
within
the
city
councils
of
the
cities
of
Los
Angeles
County.’
The
question
can
be
stated
simply.
The
answers,
however,
are
dependent
on
a
mass
of
information
necessary
to
draw
valid
comparisons
and
conclusions.
Data
of
this
type
would
necessarily
include
information
about
the
cities
and
regional
areas
themselves,
demographic
mobility,
popular
civic
attitudes,
and
important
municipal
problems.
The
legislative
committee
system,
occupying
its
place
of
major
importance
in
modern
government
structure,
demanded
thorough
investigation
as
a
basis
for
arriving
at
definitive
conclusions
to
the
major
ques-
tions.
Since
particular
councils
operate
only
as
the
sum
of
the
activities
of
in-
dividual
councilmen,
and
council
splits
often
are
a
result
of
close
human
rela-
tionships,
it
was
of
basic
importance
to
compile
a
small
dossier
about
every
in-
dividual
serving
on
a
municipal
legislative
body.
This
project-within-a-project
provided
the
necessary
information
from
which
to
draw
tentative
conclusions
as
to
the
reasons
why
some
councils
divide
and
others
perpetually
co-operate.
Obviously,
to
deal
with
council-splits
and
the
councilmen
who
cause
them,
two
basic
types
of
information
were
necessary.
First,
city
officials
in
responsible
positions
in
each
of
the
fifty-one
cities
had
to
be
interviewed
to
determine
the
presence
of
such
splits
and
their
cause.
Secondly,
in
order
to
assess
the
informa-
tion
in
terms
of
individual
councilmen,
data
had
to
be
collected
about
each
of
the
283
councilmen
in
the
county.
With
this
raw
material
concerning
both
the
* This
study
was
conducted
while
the
authors
were
employed
as
Research
Analyst
and
Research
Assistant,
respectively,
by
the
Bureau
of
Governmental
Research,
University
of
California
at
Los
Angeles.
It
was
a
part
of
a
larger
project
which
was
supported
by
funds
provided
by
the Haynes
Foundation.
To
both
organizations
the
authors
express
their
gratitude.
1
Within
the
boundaries
of
Los
Angeles
County,
California,
there
were
a
total
of
fifty-three
in-
corporated
cities
on
June
1,
1957.
There
had
been
eight
incorporations
since
1954
when
the
City
of
Lakewood
brought
to
an
end
a
long
period
of
unsuccessful
incorporation
attempts
by
becoming
the
County’s
forty-sixth
city.
Since
the
inception
of
this
project
in
June,
1957,
there
have
been
eight
successful
incorporation
elections.
The
scope
of
this
project
was
limited
to
the
fifty-three
cities
which
were
fully
incorporated
on
June
1,
1957.
The
list
was
further
narrowed
to
fifty-one
by
the
exclusion
of
the
City
of
Los
Angeles
because
of
its
size,
and
the
City
of
Avalon
because
of
its
island
inaccessibility.
Both
of
the
latter,
however,
were
included
in
the
compilation
of
data
on
individual
councilmen,
even
though
none
of
their
officials
were
exposed
to
the
principal
interviews
of
the
project.
480
members
and
their
councils,
comparative
study
would
reveal
the
answers
to
many
of
the
questions
previously
posed.
With
this
end
in
mind,
an
extensive
interview-
questionnaire
was
constructed
for
presentation
to
selected
municipal
respondents.
METHODOLOGY
In
order
to
obtain
the
information
which
would
be
necessary
to
make
this
analysis
within
the
time
limits
which
were
imposed,
it
was
decided
that
the
most
reliable
source
available
would
be
the
administrative
officers
of
the
cities
involved.
These
officers
were
either
the
city
clerk
or
the
city
manager
or
his
counterpart.
Before
these
people
could
be
tapped
for
the
information
desired,
however,
it
was
also
necessary
to
decide
upon
the
method
to
be
used
in
gathering
the
data.
The
conclusion
reached
was
that
in
order
to
insure
the
validity
of
the
interview
results,
a
mail
questionnaire
would
not
be
feasible
-
that
the
only
possible
ap-
proach
was
a
personal
interview
with
each
respondent.
Secondly,
it
was
decided
that
a
fairly
well-structured
interview
would
be
preferable
to
one
in
which
the
interviewer
worked
rather
freely
with
only
a
general
outline
of
the
type
of
in-
formation
to
be
collected.
The
lQuestionnaire
...
The
questionnaire
was
designed
for
use
in
interviewing
a
leading
city
official
in
each
of
the
fifty-one
cities
covered
by
the
project.
It
contained
questions
directed
at
securing
five
separate
types
of
information.
Of
obvious
first
impor-
tance
was
information
concerning
the
interviewee.2
Secondly,
a
battery
of
ques-
tions
concerning
the
particular
city
was
developed
and
included
in
the
ques-
tionnaire.3
3
A
third
section
of
questions
related
to
the
organization
of
the
city
councils
in
the
Los
Angeles
area.
Those
respondents
who
acknowledged
the
use
of
com-
mittees
within
the
council
were
further
questioned
as
to
methods
of
assigning
members
to
the
committees,
the
average
size
of
the
committees,
the
relative
im-
portance
of
the
committees,
and
the
most
influential
member
of
these
most
im-
portant
committees.
Questions
were
then
asked
pertaining
to
the
special
interest
of
individual
councilmen
regardless
of
their
official
committee
assignment.
This
area
of
information
was
developed
to
find
out
to
what
extent
the
individual
members
tend
to
specialize,
and
also
if
this
specialization
carries
over
into
an
at-
tempt
to
oversee
the
administration
of
their
particular
interest.
Of
particular
importance
to
the
over-all
worth
of
the
project
was
a
fourth
group
of
questions
dealing
with
council
controversies
and
voting
divisions.
This
section
began
with
a
question
as
to
the
most
controversial
issue
to
come
before
2
The
respondent’s
name,
office,
and
length
of
time
in
office,
method
of
attaining
office,
and
pre-
vious
public
office
experience
were
ascertained
(see
Tables
I,
II,
and
III).
3
This
series
contained
questions
designed
to
provide
data
regarding
the
date
of
incorporation;
the
status
of
the
community
before
incorporation;
the
most
recent
population
estimate;
questions
about
the
population
influx
and
the
attitudes
of
newcomers
viz
à viz
the
"old-timers";
and
a
list
of
terms
describing
the
city
from
which
the
respondent
was
asked
to
select
one
or
more.
This
list
was
of
a
check-off
type
and
in
some
cases
resulted
in
multiple
selections.
Those
terms
listed
were
as
follows:
industrial,
commercial,
agricultural,
resort,
residential,
and
diversified.
To continue reading
Request your trial